> Economic competition presupposes a free market. A free market cannot exist until after force has been barred. That means objective law, backed up by a government. To say it can be backed up by "competing" force-wielders is circular. There is no competition until there is a free market, and some agency has to protect its condition as a *free* market by the use of retaliatory force.↵
>↵
> The anarchist idea of putting law on "the market" cannot be applied even to a baseball game. It would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.↵
↵
Once again, supranational treaties refute this point. Germany and the US have no shared government or jurisdiction. (They each have *separate* governments, but together they have no common government *above* them.) Yet they have come up with rules of trade and justice and extradition and so on. Those are objective and evidently work really well since war between these two nations is unthinkable.↵
↵
I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians rely on a concept on which they logically depend. Clearly, as international relations show time and again, that is not the case.

 6 unchanged lines collapsed
I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept on which they logically depend.reject. Clearly, as international relations showhave shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. *It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging.* It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist *a priori*.

 6 unchanged lines collapsed
I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concepton which they reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. *It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging.* It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist *a priori*.

 6 unchanged lines collapsed
I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept they reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. *It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging.* It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist *a priori*.priori*.↵
↵
See also #16 and my application of Karl Popper’s *myth of the framework* to this issue: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/objectivism-vs-the-myth-of-the-framework